Dear Timothy,
It may indeed have been your article in Foucault Studies in which I read this. I have also read it on some on-line versions of this text, but like I said, I could find no note giving an explanation of where the claim came from.
The passage you cite does indeed provide this explanation, and is, as you say, about as "authoritative" as one could wish for.
The reason I asked the question is that it seems to me that the three texts I mentioned, when read in conjunction, provide a very useful intelligibility key for understand Foucault. By that I do not mean that they form a cypher with which to unlock the enigmatic secrets of his books. But I do think they do offer a very useful description - both in terms of a retrospective of his previous work and in terms of how his last work relates to this - of how to understand what it was he was doing..
Many thanks for providing me with this info., and special thanks for doing the translation (however roughly translated).
Kind Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: autrement@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:11:44 +0800
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Maurice Florence
>
> Dear Kevin,
>
> I myself have actually made that claim somewhere in print! The
> 'evidence',
> such as it is, is in the note that appears in Dits et Ecrits before that
> selection. But, unfortunately the 'Essential Foucault' translation only
> gives us a greatly truncated version of that note.
>
> In French, in addition to the info given in the English version, we read
> (roughly translated): ...At that time, Foucault had written a first
> version
> of volume II of HS which he knew would need re-working. A part of the
> Introduction which he had written for this book was a retrospective
> presentation of his work. This was the text he gave to Denis Huisman,
> completed with a short presentation and a bibliography. It was decided to
> sign it 'Maurice Florence', which gave the obvious abbreviation 'M.F.'...
>
> According to further notes (in the French and English editions) only the
> first sentence of the published text was written by Francois Ewald - the
> rest was by 'M.F.'
>
> Since these notes were compiled by Francois Ewald and Daniel Defert, I
> take
> them to be as authoritative as one could wish for.
>
> Best,
> Timothy
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Kevin Turner
> <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Dear Foucault Listers,
>>
>> I have read that the self title essay by Foucault, published under the
>> pseudonym of Maurice Florence (EW2: 459-463), was the first of three
>> version
>> of what finally became the 'Introduction' to Vol. 2 of the "History of
>> Sexuality:" the second being 'The Preface to the History of Sexuality,
>> Volume Two' (EW1: 199-205); and the third being Chapter 1,
>> 'Modifications,'
>> of the actual 'Introduction' itself (UP: 3-13).
>>
>> The problem is, whilst I have read this, I have not come upon any actual
>> evidence to support this claim – i.e. those who mention it cite no
>> references.
>>
>> My question, then, is, firstly, are these text three version of the same
>> introduction; and, secondly, where might I find evidence to support this
>> claim.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kevin.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
>> Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
>> Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
It may indeed have been your article in Foucault Studies in which I read this. I have also read it on some on-line versions of this text, but like I said, I could find no note giving an explanation of where the claim came from.
The passage you cite does indeed provide this explanation, and is, as you say, about as "authoritative" as one could wish for.
The reason I asked the question is that it seems to me that the three texts I mentioned, when read in conjunction, provide a very useful intelligibility key for understand Foucault. By that I do not mean that they form a cypher with which to unlock the enigmatic secrets of his books. But I do think they do offer a very useful description - both in terms of a retrospective of his previous work and in terms of how his last work relates to this - of how to understand what it was he was doing..
Many thanks for providing me with this info., and special thanks for doing the translation (however roughly translated).
Kind Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: autrement@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:11:44 +0800
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Maurice Florence
>
> Dear Kevin,
>
> I myself have actually made that claim somewhere in print! The
> 'evidence',
> such as it is, is in the note that appears in Dits et Ecrits before that
> selection. But, unfortunately the 'Essential Foucault' translation only
> gives us a greatly truncated version of that note.
>
> In French, in addition to the info given in the English version, we read
> (roughly translated): ...At that time, Foucault had written a first
> version
> of volume II of HS which he knew would need re-working. A part of the
> Introduction which he had written for this book was a retrospective
> presentation of his work. This was the text he gave to Denis Huisman,
> completed with a short presentation and a bibliography. It was decided to
> sign it 'Maurice Florence', which gave the obvious abbreviation 'M.F.'...
>
> According to further notes (in the French and English editions) only the
> first sentence of the published text was written by Francois Ewald - the
> rest was by 'M.F.'
>
> Since these notes were compiled by Francois Ewald and Daniel Defert, I
> take
> them to be as authoritative as one could wish for.
>
> Best,
> Timothy
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Kevin Turner
> <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> Dear Foucault Listers,
>>
>> I have read that the self title essay by Foucault, published under the
>> pseudonym of Maurice Florence (EW2: 459-463), was the first of three
>> version
>> of what finally became the 'Introduction' to Vol. 2 of the "History of
>> Sexuality:" the second being 'The Preface to the History of Sexuality,
>> Volume Two' (EW1: 199-205); and the third being Chapter 1,
>> 'Modifications,'
>> of the actual 'Introduction' itself (UP: 3-13).
>>
>> The problem is, whilst I have read this, I have not come upon any actual
>> evidence to support this claim – i.e. those who mention it cite no
>> references.
>>
>> My question, then, is, firstly, are these text three version of the same
>> introduction; and, secondly, where might I find evidence to support this
>> claim.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Kevin.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
>> Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
>> Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Foucault-L mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click.
Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!